|
Showing 1 - 4 of
4 matches in All Departments
The phrase "in-the-wild" is becoming popular again in the field of
human-computer interaction (HCI), describing approaches to HCI
research and accounts of user experience phenomena that differ from
those derived from other lab-based methods. The phrase first came
to the forefront 20-25 years ago when anthropologists Jean Lave
(1988), Lucy Suchman (1987), and Ed Hutchins (1995) began writing
about cognition being in-the-wild. Today, it is used more broadly
to refer to research that seeks to understand new technology
interventions in everyday living. A reason for its resurgence in
contemporary HCI is an acknowledgment that so much technology is
now embedded and used in our everyday lives. Researchers have begun
following suit-decamping from their usability and living labs and
moving into the wild; carrying out in-situ development and
engagement, sampling experiences, and probing people in their homes
and on the streets. The aim of this book is to examine what this
new direction entails and what it means for HCI theory, practice,
and design. The focus is on the insights, demands and concerns. But
how does research in the wild differ from the other applied
approaches in interaction design, such as contextual design, action
research, or ethnography? What is added by labeling user research
as being in-the-wild? One main difference is where the research
starts and ends: unlike user-centered, and more specifically,
ethnographic approaches which typically begin by observing existing
practices and then suggesting general design implications or system
requirements, in-the-wild approaches create and evaluate new
technologies and experiences in situ(Rogers, 2012). Moreover, novel
technologies are often developed to augment people, places, and
settings, without necessarily designing them for specific user
needs. There has also been a shift in design thinking. Instead of
developing solutions that fit in with existing practices,
researchers are experimenting with new technological possibilities
that can change and even disrupt behavior. Opportunities are
created, interventions installed, and different ways of behaving
are encouraged. A key concern is how people react, change and
integrate these in their everyday lives. This book outlines the
emergence and development of research in the wild. It is structured
around a framework for conceptualizing and bringing together the
different strands. It covers approaches, methods, case studies, and
outcomes. Finally, it notes that there is more in the wild research
in HCI than usability and other kinds of user studies in HCI and
what the implications of this are for the field.
|
ECSCW 2001 (Paperback, 2001 ed.)
Wolfgang Prinz, Matthias Jarke, Yvonne Rogers, K. Schmidt, Volker Wulf
|
R3,147
Discovery Miles 31 470
|
Ships in 10 - 15 working days
|
Schmidt and Bannon (1992) introduced the concept of common
information space by contrasting it with technical conceptions of
shared information: Cooperative work is not facilitated simply by
the provisioning of a shared database, but rather requires the
active construction by the participants of a common information
space where the meanings of the shared objects are debated and
resolved, at least locally and temporarily. (Schmidt and Bannon, p.
22) A CIS, then, encompasses not only the information but also the
practices by which actors establish its meaning for their
collective work. These negotiated understandings of the information
are as important as the availability of the information itself: The
actors must attempt to jointly construct a common information space
which goes beyond their individual personal information spaces. . .
. The common information space is negotiated and established by the
actors involved. (Schmidt and Bannon, p. 28) This is not to suggest
that actors' understandings of the information are identical; they
are simply "common" enough to coordinate the work. People
understand how the information is relevant for their own work.
Therefore, individuals engaged in different activities will have
different perspectives on the same information. The work of
maintaining the common information space is the work that it takes
to balance and accommodate these different perspectives. A "bug"
report in software development is a simple example. Software
developers and quality assurance personnel have access to the same
bug report information. However, access to information is not
sufficient to coordinate their work.
|
ECSCW 2001 (Hardcover, 2001 ed.)
Wolfgang Prinz, Matthias Jarke, Yvonne Rogers, K. Schmidt, Volker Wulf
|
R3,228
Discovery Miles 32 280
|
Ships in 10 - 15 working days
|
Schmidt and Bannon (1992) introduced the concept of common
information space by contrasting it with technical conceptions of
shared information: Cooperative work is not facilitated simply by
the provisioning of a shared database, but rather requires the
active construction by the participants of a common information
space where the meanings of the shared objects are debated and
resolved, at least locally and temporarily. (Schmidt and Bannon, p.
22) A CIS, then, encompasses not only the information but also the
practices by which actors establish its meaning for their
collective work. These negotiated understandings of the information
are as important as the availability of the information itself: The
actors must attempt to jointly construct a common information space
which goes beyond their individual personal information spaces. . .
. The common information space is negotiated and established by the
actors involved. (Schmidt and Bannon, p. 28) This is not to suggest
that actors' understandings of the information are identical; they
are simply "common" enough to coordinate the work. People
understand how the information is relevant for their own work.
Therefore, individuals engaged in different activities will have
different perspectives on the same information. The work of
maintaining the common information space is the work that it takes
to balance and accommodate these different perspectives. A "bug"
report in software development is a simple example. Software
developers and quality assurance personnel have access to the same
bug report information. However, access to information is not
sufficient to coordinate their work.
Rapier fencing and duelling during the 16th and 17th centuries was
dominated by the Italian masters, whose systems of sword fighting
became increasingly sophisticated. Breaking away from this trend,
Nicoletto Giganti developed something different: a frugal system of
fencing that cut to the core of what a swordfight was and how to
win it. Giganti's Scola overo Teatro, or The School of the Sword,
became one of the most influential systems of fencing across Europe
in the seventeenth century. In this remarkable new translation by
historical fencing instructor and historian Aaron Taylor Miedema,
author of Bayonets and Blobsticks, Giganti's work is presented
fresh to the modern reader. Copiously illustrated with redrawings
of dozens of Giganti's original plates, over 60 new photographs,
and even a new plate, Giganti's detailed curriculum is augmented by
comprehensive annotation and commentary. Regardless of whether you
are a historian, a casual reader with an interest in the sword, or
an accomplished swordsman, Nicoletto Giganti's The School of the
Sword is a fascinating guide to the art of rapier fencing."
|
|